South Africa Case Law

Assmang (Pty) Ltd v Ochre Shimmer Trade and Invest 78 (Pty) Ltd and Others (Leave to Appeal) (1252/2023)

Assmang (Pty) Ltd v Ochre Shimmer Trade and Invest 78 (Pty) Ltd and Others (Leave to Appeal) (1252/2023) [2023] ZANCHC 89 (1 December 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1252/2023

Judge

Stanton, A

The court found that the first respondent failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The grounds of appeal largely repeated arguments already addressed in the main application and written reasons. The evidence did not support the first respondent's claim to lawful possession or consent to access Doornfontein, nor did the minutes or subsequent correspondence establish such consent. The Constitutional Court's decision in Maledu requires exhaustion of the section 54 process before mining rights may be exercised, and the facts did not show that this process was completed. Th…

Source excerpt

• Spoliation Order
• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Development Act
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Of Two Counsel
• Surface Rights
• Urgent Application

Nontsele v Road Accident Fund (474/2022)

Nontsele v Road Accident Fund (474/2022) [2023] ZAECMHC 28 (2 May 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

474/2022

Judge

L L Sambudla

The court found no contributory negligence by the plaintiff after a sudden-emergency collision and held the Road Accident Fund liable for 100% of proven damages.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Negligence
• Contributory Negligence
• Apportionment Of Damages
• Sudden Emergency
• Costs Of Two Counsel

Graspan Colliery SA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (8420/2018)

Graspan Colliery SA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (8420/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 98 (15 February 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

8420/2018

Judge

C J Collis

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. After considering the written heads of argument and hearing counsel, the judge concluded that there was no sound, rational basis to believe another court would reach a different conclusion. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent, including the costs of two counsel.

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Reasonable Prospect Of Success
• Costs Of Two Counsel

Ntsali v Road Accident Fund (47/2017)

Ntsali v Road Accident Fund (47/2017) [2019] ZAECPEHC 26 (7 May 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

47/2017

Judge

S Rugunanan

The High Court held that the plaintiff’s costs may include two counsel after finding the personal injury and loss-of-earnings matter sufficiently important and complex.

• Costs Of Two Counsel
• Personal Injury
• Road Accident Fund Claim
• Quantum Of Damages
• Contributory Negligence
• Costs-of-two-counsel

N.A v Road Accident Fund (188/2017)

N.A v Road Accident Fund (188/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 29 (28 June 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

188/2017

Judge

G.G. Goosen

The high court held the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent in a motorcycle collision claim and awarded costs, including the costs of two counsel.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Contributory Negligence
• Quantification Of Damages
• Costs Of Two Counsel
• Road-accident-fund
• Contributory-negligence

Long Beach Homeowners Association v MEC: Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (Eastern Cape) and Others (CA316/2017)

Long Beach Homeowners Association v MEC: Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (Eastern Cape) and Others (CA316/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 26; 2020 (2) SA 257 (ECG) (29 March 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA316/2017

Judges

Pickering, Roberson, Tokota

The court held that the dispute between the Homeowners and the MEC regarding the conduct of the internal appeal does not fall within the ambit of section 17(3) of NEMA, as it is not a dispute directly concerning the protection of the environment but rather a procedural dispute about the exercise of the MEC's functions. The MEC is not a party to the substantive dispute over environmental authorisation but acts as an arbiter. The court found no basis to suspend the internal appeal proceedings or to refer the matter to conciliation under section 17(3). Regarding costs, the court determined that…

Source excerpt

• National Environmental Management Act
• Internal Appeal Procedure
• Judicial Review
• Conciliation Process
• Costs Of Two Counsel

Van Niekerk v Road Accident Fund (2521/2015)

Van Niekerk v Road Accident Fund (2521/2015) [2017] ZAECPEHC 1 (17 January 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

2521/2015

Judge

P.W. Tshiki

Road Accident Fund matter in which the court confirmed settlement, ordered 80% liability, damages, costs of two counsel, expert fees, and an undertaking for future medical costs.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Quantum Of Damages
• Costs Of Two Counsel
• Contingency Fee Agreement
• Expert Witness Fees
• Road-accident-fund

Kruger v Mothapo and Another (82907/2014)

Kruger v Mothapo and Another (82907/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 984 (11 December 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

82907/2014

Judge

Nowosenetz L

The court held that the applicant, as repayment administrator under the Banks Act, was entitled to recover and take possession of the first respondent's assets pursuant to the Registrar's directive, which is presumed valid until set aside. The application was properly brought ex parte and in camera due to the risk of asset dissipation. The respondents' points in limine regarding jurisdiction, itemization of claims, and prescription were rejected as misconceived and not supported by the Banks Act. The challenge to the Registrar's finding was not properly before the court and could only be addr…

Source excerpt

• Banks Act Enforcement
• Ex Parte Applications
• Rule Nisi Confirmation
• Administrative Decision Validity
• Costs Of Two Counsel

Dolf v Road Accident Fund (3038/2014)

Dolf v Road Accident Fund (3038/2014) [2014] ZAECPEHC 99 (11 December 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

3038/2014

Judge

J M Roberson

The High Court awarded damages in a Road Accident Fund claim, setting a 20% contingency deduction for future loss of earning capacity and allowing two counsel costs.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Loss Of Earning Capacity
• Contingency Deductions
• General Damages
• Costs Of Two Counsel
• Road-accident-fund

National Union of Metalworkers (NUMSA) obo Members v National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Another (J2082/14)

National Union of Metalworkers (NUMSA) obo Members v National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Another (J2082/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 340; (2015) 36 ILJ 743 (LC) (8 September 2014)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2082/14

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court held that the settlement agreement concluded in the MEIBC and adopted by majority vote as a collective agreement does not automatically bind NEASA and its members, who were non-signatories, unless the agreement is extended by the Minister under section 32 of the LRA or NEASA accedes to the agreement. The MEIBC constitution does not contain a provision that binds all council members to collective agreements adopted by majority vote. Therefore, NEASA and its members are not bound by the agreement and are entitled to pursue a protected lockout in support of their demands. The ap…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreements
• Protected Lockout
• Extension Of Agreements
• Bargaining Council Constitution
• Urgent Interdict
• Costs Of Two Counsel